English 83

Once again wary of reading too anachronistically, I can’t help but feel there’s something unsettling about a mass murderer charming his way into a knighthood by finding Jesus and throwing a swank dinner party.  After epics and romances, only now, in this humble poem, do the politics of largess seem truly sinister.  Just where does the Carl get all those fancy presents anyway?  Maybe when he gave Sir Kay “A blode-rede stede,” he should have thrown in one of those “blody serkes” (shirts) he had lying around.

Maybe the Middle/Old English was a bit over my head, but I’m having some difficulty understanding what makes SGCC a worthwhile piece of Arthurian Literature. I know there has to be something about it that makes it important and worth reading. It was assigned after all, and it has survived for so long that I can’t denounce its value just because I don’t see it. But, this story doesn’t really go into depth about Gawain’s character. His thoughts, intentions, desires, etc. aren’t really mentioned. So it doesn’t really serve as a way to get to know Gawain better or see him in any new light. And, although it may be a new twist on the classic romantic adventure, the events are so similar to “Sir Gawain and the Green Knight” that there isn’t anything revolutionary about them; they were already done before. Regardless if the author had heard SGGK when he wrote SGCC, why would people continue to publish a work for such a long time if there already was one similar (and arguably better) in existence?

Although we may never know, the thought of both the authors composing SGGK and SGCC totally unaware of each other would be pretty interesting. It might show some evidence that the classic Arthurian was really starting to bore people, but even more interesting would be that two authors chose to put Gawain in the same particular situations: In need of lodging, Find jolly but sketchy man to stay with, Have man tell his wife to seduce him, Put to a number of tests by hosts (resist wife seduction, strike host, obey all of hosts strange commands), etc. So if indeed both Gawain works were composed with ignorance of the other, what would that mean? Why put Gawain in these situations? What does that say about Gawain and people’s reaction/interpretation of him? Is the fact that SGCC is so similar to SGGK what makes it valuable and worth reading?

Everyone: Please take a few moments to go through a 10 question survey that will help me gauge our collective familiarity with some key concepts for the class. This information will help me design a better review, and a better exam. .

Thanks in advance. Click Here to take survey

Notes for week 6

Unable to get the Geraldine Heng article to load, I frivolously summon the specter of queer theory anachronism: Is Gawain gay? The answer being “no,” what does his rejection of “courteous” adultery suggest about the English morality on display here?

From my Tolkien translation:

The lady in lovely guise came laughing sweetly, / bent down o’er his dear face, and deftly kissed him. (70)

The knight said: ‘By Saint John,’  / and softly gave a smile, / ‘Nay! lover have I none, / and none will have meanwhile.’ (71)

Sighing she sank down, and sweetly she kissed him; (72)

She then the knight so good / a third time kissed that day. (74)

He clasps then the knight and kisses him thrice, / as long and deliciously as he could lay them upon him. (77)

For it is my weed that thou wearest, that very woven girdle: / my own wife it awarded thee, I wot well indeed. / Now I am aware of thy kisses, and thy courteous ways, / and of thy wooing by my wife: I worked that myself! (95)

Does anyone know which text the Carl of Carlisle is in?

Was it just me or did it feel like Sir Gawain and the Green Knight, in comparison to the other things that we have been reading, was incredibly uneventful? The lesson learned by Gawain is really essential to understanding how the knights of the Round Table were supposed to behave. Is it because I’ve read it before that I breezed through this, completely unfascinated by the writing and events? It wasn’t boring, it just wasn’t really great story-telling. So what was the REAL purpose of Sir Gawain and the Green Knight? Why did people need to have this humbling lesson pointed out to them?

In Chapter 9, just as Parzifal is about to learn about “hidden” matters of the gral, Wofram steps in with another of his characteristic apostrophes. His source, Kyot, wanted him to keep this information about the gral and its angelic origins hidden “till the story itself reached the point where it has to be spoken of” (232). He continues: Continue Reading »

So I know we already talked a little about this in class, but I still don’t really understand why it was okay for Gahmuret to just completely ditch Belacane. I know she isn’t baptized, but he tells her “Madam, you can still win me, if you will be baptized” (39). Her instantaneous reply is:

How soon that can be done! I will be christened with all speed if only he will come back…I would gladly be baptized to the glory of God…and live according to his liking! (40).

He completely leads her on, he doesn’t really give her a real chance at being baptized because he’s already gone by the time she reads his letter, AND he abandons her while she’s pregnant! How is this not a bad thing to do? How is it possible that he escapes all blame? Especially when all the descriptions of her are like this:

Yet the dusky lady was dearer to him than life. Never was there a woman of comelier form. Her heart, too, was ever mindful of the truly modest woman’s ways that were in constant attendance on it (39).

If Belacane is such a flawless model of feminine virtue, and if she’s willing to convert, and if Gahmuret supposedly loves her so much, AND if she’s pregnant, I really don’t see any way in which abandoning her is okay. Thoughts?

Parzival comes from a different (German) culture than both Chretien and the Prose Lancelot cycle.  It is hard not to notice some of the dissimilarities implied by the narrative discrepancies of Parzival and the The Story of the Grail.  In particular, Parzival makes interesting choices surrounding sexuality, compared with Chretien’s Romance.  For example when Parzival encounters the lady besieged in the castle and she visits him at night:

She wore formidable armour: a white silken shift!  What could be more challenging than a woman bearing down on a man in this fashion?  The lady had thrown round her  long mantle of samite.  Her step betrayed the cares that haarassed her…So far as lovers’ embraces went both he and the Queen were dunces.  The wooing and doing went thus.  THe maiden was unappy and deeply embarassed.  ‘Did he pull her into bed with him at all?’  Alas he has no experience of that.  Yet without experience he does take her in under truce that they do not bring their appeasing limbs together. (106)

This text in Parzival is sexually explicit in a way that no other previous work seems to have been.  It implies an earthiness, perhaps even a kind of vulgarity.  The Queen is described in sensual terms, her appearance is emphasized and eroticized.  The narrator expresses disappointment that Parzival does not engage sexually with this woman.  It is as though this narrator is frustrated with Parzival’s purity.  This is almost the opposite of Chretien’s rendition of the same scene:

And he kissed her and held her tightly in his arms.  He placed her gently and comfortably beneath the coverlet, and she let him kiss her, and I do not believe it displeased her.  Thus they lay side by side with lips touching all night long until morning came and day dawned.  (407)

This description focuses upon the virginal quality of Perceval as a positive aspect.  The narrative thrust of the story is removed from the beauty of the woman and sexaulity of the scene.  It is instead placed on the virginal purity of Perceval.  The contrast between Chretien’s story and that of Eschenbach suggests to me a difference in intended audience.  I struggle to define this difference though, because both were poets writing for the literate noble classes. 

Does anyone else have any insight into these very different portrayals of sex and sexuality?  Does anyone want to argue they are actually very similar? 

We noted in discussion the ethical quandary surrounding the ‘poisoned fruit’ episode in the Death of KA, and the very complicated and contradictory figure of Lancelot, and the relationships he has with KA and QG.
I mentioned in class that this text seems to be offering up several critiques at once: of courtly adulterous love as being inferior to homosocial male-male bonds in the liege/lord relationship, which is in turn still more inferior to the homosocial bonds engendered in monastic religious societies (as shown in the Quest of the Holy Grail).

Continue Reading »

So I don’t know exactly what went on between Guinevere and Lancelot in “King Arthur’s Death,” because I didn’t read it. I read “The Death of King Arthur” by Thomas Malory and thought it was the same thing. My bad.

Anyway, in Malory’s version I thought it was really disconcerting how Lancelot and Guinevere admitted they were in love (to each other), and yet Lancelot kept insisting that he was so devoted to Guinevere that he would prove by combat that she was true to Arthur. Malory doesn’t say if they had sex or not. When they meet in the Guinevere’s chamber for the last time, he just writes “the queen and Sir Lancelot were together, and whether they were abed other at other manner of disports me list not thereof make no mention, for love at that time was not as love is nowadays.” (161)

I’m curious…did they have sex in the version I was supposed to read? Because I also forgot to buy it in the first place, so I can’t look it up and find out.  And if so, did Lancelot still go on about what a true and faithful wife she was?

Thanks for an interesting discussion today, everyone.

Here are notes for weeks four and five. I’ll post something tomorrow about the very interesting discussion here on Guinevere’s plight, and the issue of Lancelot’s arrogance. . .

wks45.zip

I know that Lancelot’s love for Guinevere was great, but how arrogant does he have to be to not only disregard even the advice of a closest brother, but take not consider how suspiciously the king treats him? He could not even wait a short amount of time for a little of the suspicion to die down, or find some way to get the queen away from the castle and later meet her. It just seems a bit far-fetched to me that even with the blind devotion Lancelot had for Guinevere, he would be so arrogant as to discount even simple common sense. Perhaps his victories in the tournaments gave him this overconfident attitude, but this underestimation of the hatred and desires to see him caught by some of the other knights (especially Agravain) is atrocious.

Also, the speed at which he gives up his friendship with Arthur and the Knights in general was appalling. This ties into his arrogance, that he would be willing to tear apart everything his once closest friend and had worked for his love. He believes that he has the strength and support to escape with his love should he need too, and is not afraid to fight with the strongest man in Britain. This makes it seem more that the whole purpose of him being a Knight of the Table was to get closer to Guinevere, especially considering how quickly he reverted after his solemn oaths after the Grail quest. I suppose in another point of view it could be considered romantic that he gives up everything and fights for his love, but this is going too far in my opinion, especially with how far in the wrong he was in loving her in the first place.

While reading The Death of King Arthur, I was extremely surprised by the way in which the people treat Guinevere and the inconsistencies which arise. First, there is no one to defend her when everyone believes that she has poisoned a knight. Then, Lancelot saves her, and everything is ok. When Agravain actually proves that she is committing adultery with Lancelot, though, no body seems to care. Only Arthur and a certain group of knights, who are deemed “traitors,” seem to want to punish Guinevere.
Gawain won’t stand up for Guinevere because he THINKS that she is in the wrong and that she poisoned a knight, but then when he KNOWS that she is in the wrong, he bails on King Arthur and basically says I won’t have anything to do with you because you are punishing her for her crime. Also, the people cry out as she is being led to her execution: “Ah, King Arthur, you who have treacherously sought her death, you can still repent, and the traitors who have arranged this can die in shame” (121). I fail to see how a group of knights, who are loyal to the king, are treacherous because they caught Lancelot in bed with the Queen. It seems entirely crazy that so many people just say screw King Arthur and lawful marriage, Guinevere and Lancelot are great. I mean, Lancelot and Guinevere betrayed the man who loved them the most and who always treated everyone with respect, but no one seems to care.
I don’t really know what to think about this as far as being able to say something about the work as a whole or French society, so are there any thoughts? Maybe advocating true love over obligation to the monarch, or somehting along those lines.

Remember Geoffrey of Monmouth?  More particularly, remember how he was Welsh?  Originally Arthur started off as a Welsh myth, designed to serve as a statement of national identity.  Chretien seems to be modifying that narrative to fit French nationalistic impulses.  While Perceval is a naturally skilled knight, he is also something of a country bumpkin fom Wales.  He refuses to take the expensive and fine clothing of the defeated Red Knight and is a “Momma’s Boy”, he literally does whatever his mother tells him! 

This frenchification may account for some of the odd narrative inconsistencies apparent between the version of the Arthurian legend which originates in Chretien and that version which exists in the English tradition.  For example,  Sir Kay the Jerk emerges in Chretien’s interpretation of Arthur.  This may also have influenced Chretien’s decision to make Arthur impotent, neutering the greatest mythological hero of British nationalism.  The obvious french distortion in these respects makes me wonder about other more subtle points in the text, such as courtly love.  If courtly love is satirical, then Chretien may be subtly insulting British virtue by forcing British knights to conform to the codes of courtly love.

            If Shakespeare has a conspiracy theory, Chrétien should get one too, especially considering how much less we know about him.

            To me, “Erec and Enide” seems to be very different from the other Chrétien stories we’ve read.  Others have alluded to this in other posts, but as of yet, no one has woven the threads together into a satisfyingly far-fetched theory.  So for your reading pleasure, I present my Chrétien conspiracy theory.

            Point the first:  The character of Sir Kay the seneschal.  Since there’s already a whole thread about this, I’ll just hit the highlights.  In “E&E,” Kay doesn’t seem like a bad guy.  But in the “The Cart,” “The Lion” and “The Grail” he becomes an ass extraordinaire.  Why the abrupt change?  Did Chrétien really just need to insert some tension into his stories?  Or was it something more … sinister?

Continue Reading »

Going back to the issue of names, I thought names were given special significance in “The Story of the Grail.” It comes up within the first few pages of the story, when Perceval’s mother sends him off with some advice: “Never keep company with anyone for very long, whether at an inn or on the road, without asking his name. Learn his name in full, for by the name one knows the man” (388). Keeping this quotation in mind, what’s the significance of him having to “guess” his name after he leaves the castle of the Fisher King? “And the youth, who did not know his name, guessed and said he was called Perceval the Welshman. But although he did not know if that were true or not, he spoke the truth without knowing it” (425). In light of everything we’ve been talking about in class, I thought this raised some really interesting questions. What does this mean for Perceval in terms of his identity? His current and future reputation? What is the significance of him getting renamed “Perceval the wretched” by his cousin moments after he names himself?

Near the end of Yvain’s story when Gawain is revealing his name he starts talking about blows inflicted in terms of interest (pg 262 in mine, roughly verse 6300).

“For if I have lent you anything of mine, you have fully paid me back, principal and interest, for you were more ready to pay back than I was to accept the payment.” This made me think about the nearly absent role of money in the society. The knights don’t pay for lodging, just invite themselves and/or are invited by grateful townsfolk. Horses are traded based on need (i.e. an exhausted one for a fresh one) Currency/bullion etc is never used; gold is only mentioned for its beauty and adornment. Ditto with precious gems decorating helmets, crowns, etc. Kings’ power isn’t measured in vast stores of gold. Etc.

I guess I can see from a general sense why Chretien would ignore money on the whole. The code of chivalry is ostensibly about the ideal of serving (either the weak, fellow knights in trouble, the imprisoned, the object of one’s courtly love) whereas trade implies a situation of base materials and personal benefit.

More specifically however, Gawaine’s language seems to implicitly praise money lending; I can’t imagine a knight would refer to an equal’s conduct by comparing it to a sin. Yet at the time this was written, the Catholic Church was aggressive in policing against “usury.” Is this just the work of an anachronistic translator? In reference to moneylending Crusader orders? Some other alternative?

One thing that really irked me about this tale was its lack of any coherent plot structure. Yvain is always getting sidetracked. He vows to save Lunete from a bloodthirsty seneschal, but then Chretien makes him kill a giant before he can fulfill his promise to her. He agrees to help restore a lady’s inheritance from the clutches of her grasping older sister, but on the way he has to defend the cause of beautiful women in British sweatshops. Maybe this irritation is partly my fault, because I read it in two hours straight, which probably doesn’t make for maximum enjoyment. The entire story seems more like a television series. Every episode Yvain runs into a different adventure, and the larger picture is just vaguely alluded to until the end of the series.

I’m guessing Chretien’s audience didn’t have to sit through it all in one night either…or at least I’m desperately hoping. For their own sanity.

At the very beginning of “The Knight of the Cart” (Lancelot) Chretien introduces his reason for writting his story (lns 1-31). The note on this section says that both the introduction and the rest of the story can be read as being serious or as being meant to be humorous and exaggerated. I think that the first 31 lines makes it obvious that Chretien is being both humorous and ironic by exaggerating his praises of his patroness. The very repetition of his “and I utter no word of flattery” and later: “I am not one, I swear, who would wish to flatter his lady” (pp. 185), followed by extravagant flattery seems to me to imply that Chretien is being ironic in his flattery.

The line “Shall I say the countess is worth as many queens as a gem is worth pearls and sards? Certainly not: I shall not mention it” (pp. 185) right after saying he is not one to flatter anyone makes the flattery both humorous and ironic. I think he does this in part to prepare for the rest of his story which is a story of courtly love thrown to the extremes. In many parts Lancelot’s courtly love is exaggerated so much that it is both ironic and humorous. Take for example lines 714 to 813 when Lancelot is so involved in his contemplation of his love that he does not hear the knight at the ford warning his off three times. The whole episode is both humorous and ironic. Chretien is taking courtly love to its extreme in order to create humorous and exaggerated circumstances. I think the introductory paragraph complements this purpose of using exaggeration as part of an ironic situation.